A.C. No. 9604 - Tapay vs. Bancolo

Case Summary (A.C. No. 9604)

Factual Background

In August 2004 a complaint for usurpation of authority, falsification of public document, and graft was filed before the Office of the Ombudsman and was purportedly signed for the complainant by Atty. Charlie L. Bancolo. Upon receiving an Ombudsman order to file counter-affidavits, Anthony J. Rustia confronted Atty. Bancolo, who denied that the signature on the complaint was his. Atty. Bancolo executed an affidavit dated December 9, 2004, disavowing the signature and submitted six specimen signatures. Using that affidavit and other documentary evidence, the complainants alleged falsification of the purported counsel’s signature and caused the Ombudsman to provisionally dismiss the original complaint and to order separate proceedings on falsification and dishonesty.

Ombudsman Proceedings and Subsequent Filings

Respondent Nehimias Divinagracia, Jr. filed a counter-affidavit dated August 1, 2005, accompanied by an affidavit of Richard A. Cordero, the legal assistant of Atty. Bancolo, asserting that the Jarder Bancolo Law Office accepted the case and that the office secretary signed the complaint per Atty. Bancolo’s instructions. The Ombudsman, in resolutions dated September 19, 2005, dismissed the falsification and dishonesty cases for insufficiency and lack of substantial evidence and allowed revival or refiling of complaints for other offenses, including under RA 3019.

Complaint to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines

On November 29, 2005 Rodrigo E. Tapay and Anthony J. Rustia filed a disbarment complaint with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines alleging that the signature of Atty. Charlie L. Bancolo had been forged on the Ombudsman complaint and on other letter-complaints. They attached a Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory report dated July 1, 2005, which concluded that the questioned signatures were not written by the same person as the submitted exemplars. A supplement averred that the Jarder Bancolo Law Office secretary, Mary Jane Gentugao, forged Atty. Bancolo’s signature. In their Answer dated January 26, 2006, respondents admitted that the Ombudsman cases were accepted and assigned to Atty. Bancolo and explained that pleadings and communications were drafted by staff and, because of minor lapses, were signed in his name by the law office secretary with his tolerance. Respondents denied that Gentugao was employed as secretary. The parties exchanged pleadings, failed appearances in mandatory conferences, and filed position papers in October 2006.

IBP Investigating Commissioner’s Findings

On April 11, 2007 the Investigating Commissioner, Atty. Lolita A. Quisumbing, recommended disciplinary action. She found that Atty. Charlie L. Bancolo violated Rule 9.01 of Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by allowing a non-lawyer to sign pleadings in his name and that such practice evidenced negligence and indolence. She also found that Atty. Janus T. Jarder, as a senior partner, failed in his supervisory duties under Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and recommended admonition for his lapse in command responsibility.

IBP Board of Governors Resolution and Posture

On September 19, 2007 the IBP Board of Governors adopted the Investigating Commissioner’s report with modification. The Board suspended Atty. Charlie L. Bancolo from the practice of law for one year for violation of Rule 9.01, Canon 9, and it amended the recommendation as to Atty. Janus T. Jarder by dismissing the charge against him for lack of merit. Complainants and Atty. Bancolo filed motions for reconsideration; Atty. Jarder filed a consolidated comment. The IBP Board denied the motions by Resolution No. XX-2012-175 dated June 9, 2012, affirming the earlier disposition.

Supreme Court’s Review and Disposition

On review, the Supreme Court agreed with the IBP Board’s findings as to Atty. Charlie L. Bancolo and with its dismissal as to Atty. Janus T. Jarder. The Court found that Atty. Bancolo admitted that documents filed in his name before the Ombudsman were signed by a secretary. The Court held that this conduct violated Rule 9.01, Canon 9, and constituted an act of falsehood subject to disciplinary sanction. The Court suspended Atty. Charlie L. Bancolo from the practice of law for one year effective upon finality of the decision. The Court dismissed the complaint against Atty. Janus T. Jarder for lack of merit. The Court directed that the decision be attached to Atty. Bancolo’s record and furnished to the IBP and the Office of the Court Administrator.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court grounded its decision on the explicit duty of counsel to refrain from assisting the unauthorized practice of law and on the personal nature of the attorney’s certification when signing pleadings. The Court invoked the rule that a lawyer shall not delegate to an unqualified person any task reserved by law to a member of the Bar, as stated in Rule 9.01, Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court relied on Cambaliza v. Cristal-Tenorio and Republic v. Kenrick Development Corporation for the proposition that preparation and signing of pleadings constitute legal work reserved to members of the Bar and that counsel’s signature certifies that he has read the pleading, believes there is good ground to support it, and that it is not interposed for delay, as provided in Rule 7, Section 3 of

Case Syllabus (A.C. No. 9604)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Rodrigo E. Tapay and Anthony J. Rustia were employees of the Sugar Regulatory Administration who filed the administrative complaint before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
Atty. Charlie L. Bancolo and Atty. Janus T. Jarder were the respondents and partners in the Jarder Bancolo Law Office who were charged with violations of the Canons of Ethics and Professionalism, falsification of public document, gross dishonesty, and harassment.
The complaint to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) arose after litigation and administrative proceedings at the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas concerning an allegedly forged counsel signature.
The IBP Investigating Commissioner submitted a Report and Recommendation, the IBP Board of Governors issued resolutions, and the Court reviewed those IBP proceedings and records in this administrative case.

Key Factual Allegations

A complaint dated 31 August 2004 was filed with the Office of the Ombudsman by Nehimias Divinagracia, Jr., which purportedly bore the signature of Atty. Charlie L. Bancolo as counsel.
Atty. Charlie L. Bancolo denied authorship of the signature after being shown the complaint and subsequently signed an affidavit on 9 December 2004 denying his signature and submitting six specimen signatures for comparison.
Rodrigo E. Tapay and Anthony J. Rustia used Atty. Bancolo's affidavit and other documents to file a counter-affidavit alleging that Divinagracia forged his counsel's signature.
The complainants later submitted a Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory-6 report dated 1 July 2005 concluding that questioned signatures in other letter-complaints were not written by the same person as Atty. Bancolo's specimen signatures.
Atty. Bancolo admitted in his IBP Answer that pleadings and communications in the firm were prepared by staff and that he permitted his secretary to sign pleadings in his name due to alleged minor lapses.
Atty. Jarder acknowledged the law office accepted the cases and that the case assignments were made, while denying knowledge or direct participation in any forgery and denying employment of the secretary alleged to have forged signatures.

Ombudsman Proceedings

The Office of the Ombudsman provisionally dismissed the original complaint against Tapay and Rustia on 28 March 2005 because the alleged falsification of counsel's signature raised a prejudicial question.
The Office of the Ombudsman ordered separate proceedings for falsification of public document and dishonesty against Divinagracia with Rustia and Atty. Bancolo as complainants.
The Office of the Ombudsman dismissed the falsification criminal case OMB-V-C-05-0207-E for insufficiency of evidence in a Resolution dated 19 September 2005.
The administrative dishonesty case OMB-V-A-05-0219-E was likewise dismissed for lack of substantial evidence in a Decision dated 19 September 2005.

IBP Proceedings

Tapay and Rustia filed the disbarment complaint docketed as CBD Case No. 05-1612 with the IBP on 29 November 2005 supported by the PNP Crime Laboratory report and other documents.
The parties attended